this says it all....

welcome to the new secession of north america.

Why Everyone Should Vote For Kerry...

my friend lindsay wrote this letter to the my school's newspaper...you should read it!
---------------
October 14, 2004
Dear Chips:
I am currently studying and living in East Africa at the University of Dar es Salaam. Living abroad during an election year makes me privy to the rest of the world’s thoughts on our country and its candidates. I would like to share some insights I have gained about the United States from my current outside perspective.

Recently, I filled out and returned my absentee voter ballot- my first time voting in a presidential election. I sat at my desk for many minutes before finally marking the candidate I already knew I needed to choose. I am not a Democrat, but I voted for John Kerry anyway. There has been a lot of talk among American voters this year, particularly among those who are left-of-center, about the need to vote for Kerry because "a vote for Kerry is a vote against Bush." Or because in a two-party system in which the two mainstream parties are unnervingly similar, Kerry is the "lesser of two evils." Or because the Green Party isn’t a viable presidential option. Each of these thoughts has crossed my mind.

I considered the worth of voting for one man, not because I feel that he is good, but simply because he seems better than another man. However, perhaps sometimes that's all the reason that is needed. Just this morning, I was listening to BBC news coverage of the presidential debates. A Palestinian man interviewed said that Kerry is better than Bush because "there is no worse president than Bush. I want to see a change."

I voted for Kerry because he represents that change. In an article that appeared in both the UK edition of The Guardian and in the Tanzanian edition of The African, a journalist stated, "A Bush victory would suggest that given a choice between leading the world through force or through consensus… most of those who expressed a preference preferred force." John Kerry represents the possibility of a different American attitude towards the world.

Bush represents an America that feels it is above the international community, an American that is aggressive and violent, an America that does not believe in the existence of Palestine, an America that refuses to adequately fund AIDS programs, an America that wishes to unilaterally control the global economy according to its interests – at the expense of human life and dignity elsewhere. Is this really who we are? Are we really so greedy and ignorant, so materialistic? Are we so caught up in the frenzy of "patriotism" that we have decided to never again ask questions? To blind ourselves and continue to send our brothers and sisters across oceans to kill and be killed?

I think we are better than that. I hope John Kerry can be better than that. Maybe Kerry won’t change these things. We know Bush will not. Do not wallow in such naïve illusions that Bush’s aggression has somehow made us "safer." We are vulnerable to the seething frustration and anger of all those worldwide whose humanity and interests we have neglected. In a speech delivered late in September, Senator Edward M. Kennedy discussed the Iraq quagmire. He cautioned, "For every mistake we make, for every innocent Iraqi child we accidentally kill in another bombing raid, the ranks of the insurgents climb…"

He quoted an Army Reservist who said, "For every guerilla we kill with a ‘smart bomb’, we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger… This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists…" Four more years of a Bush administration will only increase our enemies. As my Tanzanian friend Ochieng said so succinctly last week, "You cannot protect Americans by killing Iraqis." This statement rings true for any country that we wage war against, for any reasons. Do not be fooled. America is not "safer" under Bush, nor is national security really his priority.

So we come to John Kerry. Here is our chance to show a suspicious global audience that we have witnessed Bush’s mistakes, we have recognized his failures and we have elected to associate ourselves with a different ideology. Let’s vote for Kerry- and hold him accountable to a higher standard of American diplomacy. I will hope with all my might.

Salama (in peace),
Lindsay McRae Sumner ‘06
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

What This Whole Draft Thing Is Really About...

Ok...

So, last night there was a forum on political issues and what the candidates thought about said issues. A question about the possibilities of a draft came up. And this is what I found out:

-The draft bill that was sitting in the House did not pass.
-There is still on in the Senate that needs to be voted on.
-It is supported by BOTH REPUBLICANS & DEMOCRATS.
-It was started originally to take the burden off of low income families, who are disproportionately people of color, by making it mandatory for ALL U.S. citizens to participate in either military or civic duty programs.

-What does that mean?
-It means that right now, there are more working class people in the military and no Congresspeoples kids, very little upper-middle, and upper class U.S. citizens serving.
-I suppose you could consider this a low income/people of color draft that is currently in place.
-I would hope that the military would stop bragging about Affirmative Action right now...seeing as they are not using it the way it is supposed to be.

-There is currently a thing called a 'back door draft'.
-This is when people who think they have served their time in the military get called up and told that they are not done yet.
-Whoops, I believe this is illegal...

-Also...
-We have plently of troops.
-We are just stretching them thin.
-We are occupying too many countries at one time, thus we do not have the numbers necessary to 'get r done' in the places with the most conflict.

If anyone has any comments/questions/concerns about this, I'll gladly help w/answering.

response to silly conservative rhetoric

this is a letter to the editor that me and my friend missy worked on tonite...we realize that it will most likely be edited down and that it could be a little more fine tuned...but we were pissed...so yay for us for doing something about it.
peace,
meghan

Letter to the Editor:
Your article brings many questions to mind about the rhetoric that was used to discredit the Democratic Party. You stated, “Democrats would rather lose the war in Iraq than the election here at home,” however it seems as though you would rather bash the democrats than give the republican’s plan as how to win the war in Iraq. Kerry and Edwards are concerned with what is going on in Iraq and that is why they want to oust Bush.

Bush and Cheney say two things: Kerry changes his mind too often; if he wins, we can be sure that “the terrorists” will attack again. First, we would rather have a leader admit when they are wrong and try to correct the course instead of stubbornly creating more damage than good. Secondly, how do Bush and Cheney know that we will be attacked again (unless they have some information they are not sharing with us)? We are tired of the Bush administration pushing their rhetoric of fear. That is exactly what your article has represented – a rhetoric of fear. You have painted a picture that the democrats are like small, naïve children, when in fact, that is exactly how Bush performed at the last debate. His composure, facial expressions, constant interchanging of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein with 9/11, as well as his continuous stating that John Kerry is a flip-flop – all of these things should make every U.S. citizen, regardless of political affiliation, question the Bush administration’s motives and competency.

If Bush was as strong and “compassionate” as says he is, don’t you think that there would be more “plans for the future?” Which leads us back to your article.

Why is it a problem that “a twelve-year- old [was given] a prime time speaking slot” at the DNC, when Republicans avidly support rejecting the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm)? Isn’t giving voice to our future planning for the future? We are the only country, other than Somalia, which is not recognized as a country, to not sign this document. Hell, why aren’t we allowing the rest of the world to have a voice when it comes to our foreign policy? Global AIDS has risen more during the last 4 years than in the history of AIDS because Bush signed the Global Gag Rule. This has denied access to birth control and other contraceptives (that would not only prevent unwanted children, but stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STD’s) to “underdeveloped” nations – he felt that abstinence would be the best solution.

You say “…the political party that sacrifices long-term national security for short-term political gain displays…childlike and idiotic behavior,” and to be perfectly honest, the Bush administration has done just that – not only for national security, but also for “global security.” Before you write another oversimplified article about why Republicans are better than Democrats, perhaps you should do some research into why you believe what you believe, as well as what your party has done to benefit/harm our local communities, states, the nation, and the rest of the world. Don’t politicize our national tragedy and stop this rhetoric of fear.

Peace,
Missy Hall ’05 and Meghan Karels ‘05

this is why i hate conservative rhetoric...

so...this is an article that was published in my school newspaper...it is a perfect example of oversimplified conservative rhetoric...

Dems fueling unrealistic goals
by: Jake Togerson and Tim Lundquist
After three full weeks of class, Luther students are beginning to realize that school is once again back in session. Students are discovering that they can’t order pizza every night for dinner, that worthwhile studying can only be done in the library and that John Moeller’s Constitutional Law requires more effort than previously planned for.

In short, students are being forced to put their utopian “Animal House” notions of college aside for a reality that is difficult, expensive and whose only tangible benefits lie years away. Why do we do this? Because we know that we must sacrifice the pleasures of today for the treasures of tomorrow. There are some of us who refuse to let go of the “Animal House” fantasy. They complain about school — the cost, the effort — and seem to ignore the facts and circumstances in front of them. Instead of embracing a challenging future, they seem to yearn only for the endless summers of the past.

In much the same way, Democrats have embraced “Animal House” politics in their unflinching criticism of George W. Bush on their quest for political power. While President Bush and other Republicans have rolled up their sleeves and resigned themselves to the idea that peace comes only through victory over the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, national Democrats seem to have sold themselves on the idea that peace comes only through the defeat of George W. Bush.

Just as college students who admire the likes of John Belushi put on their “beer goggles” to ignore their undone homework, Democrats who admire the likes of Michael Moore put on their “I Hate George Bush” goggles, ignoring the thousands of Islamic terrorists in order to focus on their real enemy: Republicans. It seems as if Democrats would rather lose the war in Iraq than the election here at home.

“Animal House” politics are centered on the childlike notion that what feels good today will be good tomorrow. What gets me elected today won’t matter tomorrow. It is the politics of children that the Democratic party has embraced. And we mean that literally. What other major political party would give a twelve-year- old a prime time speaking slot at their national convention? What other political party would fight to lower the voting age in California from 18 to 14?

And what other political party would hold their convention in a literal fortress, complete with armed guards, razor wire and the best security systems in the world and declare “the only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush,” as Sen. Ted Kennedy did?

That single line best illustrates the “Animal House” politics that a majority of the Democratic Party seems to share. 9-11 was our fault, George W. Bush and Republicans are the enemy, America is the problem, terrorism is a matter for the police or the U.N. and that if we could have avoided the war in Iraq, Osama would be in jail, France would still admire us and Bill Clinton could warp us back to the endless summer of the 1990’s.

It seems as if Democrats think that if they wish for it long enough, these ideas will become reality.

A college student who drinks the night before an exam is a child and an idiot for not recognizing that rewards in the future require sacrifices in the present. The political party that sacrifices long-term national security for short-term political gain displays the same childlike and idiotic behavior. They do not recognize that peace in the future requires direct action today. Like the “Animal House” rules of college, “Animal House” politics might feel great today but will likely give us all a hangover that we will not soon forget.

Isn’t it interesting to see how ‘news’ is interpreted?

Below I put a NYT article and an Al Jazeera article…both the same event that happened in Baghdad, Iraq yesterday (30 September 2004).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dozens Killed in Attack Near U.S. Convoy in Western Baghdad
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30/international/middleeast/30CND-IRAQ.html?oref=login&hp)
By TERENCE NEILAN
Published: September 30, 2004

Three car bombs were set off near an American military convoy in western Baghdad today, killing at least 35 people and wounding dozens, hospital officials said.

Ten American soldiers were wounded in the attack, the military said in a statement from Baghdad. Eight were treated and released and two had more serious injuries and were evacuated to a medical facility, the statement said.

Many Iraqi casualties were also reported, according to the statement, which gave no further details.

Officials at the Yarmouk hospital told Reuters that they were inundated with bodies and had taken in at least 42 dead. They said about 140 people were wounded, most of them children hit by shrapnel.

Residents told the news agency that a ceremony to open a new water and sewage plant was taking place when the attack occurred.

Earlier, an American soldier was killed and three others were wounded when a roadside bomb exploded at a checkpoint in western Baghdad, the military said.

Two Iraqi policemen were also reported killed, and 10 Iraqis wounded.

In an early-morning raid on Falluja, a Sunni Muslim stronghold west of the capital, American forces raided what the United States military said was a successful strike on a known safe house used by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. At least four Iraqis were reported dead.
"Significant secondary explosions were observed during the impact indicating a large cache of illegal ordinance was stored in the safe house," a military statement said. Explosions continued in the northeastern side of the city for hours, The A.P. reported.

In the northern city of Talafar, a car bomb aimed at the police chief killed at least 4 people and wounded 16, Iraqi and American officials said, The Associated Press reported. A police officer speaking on condition of anonymity said the police chief, whose name was only given as Colonel Ismail, escaped from the assassination attempt.

Also today, the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera showed footage of what it said was 10 new hostages seized by militants in Iraq. Al-Jazeera said the 10 — 6 Iraqis, 2 Lebanese and 2 Indonesian women — were taken by The Islamic Army in Iraq. The group claimed responsibility for seizing two French journalists last month.

The footage showed three of the hostages, who were not identified, and two masked gunmen pointing weapons at them. There was no mention of demands or where the hostages were abducted.

Al-Jazeera said the 10 were employees of an electricity company.

A Lebanese Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, later told The A.P. that two Lebanese citizens had been seized in Iraq, but it was not immediately clear if they were the same as those shown by Al-Jazeera.

The Frenchmen, Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, disappeared Aug. 20 during a trip to Najaf, in southern Iraq. The Islamic Army in Iraq demanded that France revoke a new law banning Islamic head scarves from state schools.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many killed in Baghdad blasts
(http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7393F1E3-1108-43E0-8144-6E43CC2E0C0A.htm)
Thursday 30 September 2004, 16:17 Makka Time, 13:17 GMT

Bomb outside Abu Ghraib headquarters injured 60 civilians
At least 41 people were killed, most of them children, and scores more were wounded in four car bombings around Baghdad.

Morgue director Naji Shitshan told journalists at the capital's Yarmuk Hospital on Thursday that 37 children were among the dead, three men and a woman.

The three blasts follow an earlier car bombing that killed one US soldier and two Iraqi policemen and wounded 10 Iraqis and three US soldiers.

The bomb exploded near a checkpoint at a crowded intersection in Abu Ghraib, just west of Baghdad. A doctor at Abu Ghraib hospital, Muhammad Safaa al-Din, said 60 people had been wounded in the blast, including 15 children and 10 women.

US toll increase

Another US soldier was killed in a separate incident when a rocket hit a US logistics base near Baghdad.

The confirmed deaths of the two soldiers raise the US toll in Iraq toat least 1052 since Iraq was invaded in 2003. No accurate figures for Iraqi civilian casualties have been kept, though the toll is believed to be just under 40,000.

Instability is mounting in Iraq just four months before nationwide polls, and a few weeks before the US presidential election in November.

Attacks on US troops have risen to around 80 a day from 40 a month ago.

Why America Is So Damn Great

I found this picture and I think it has something important to say...

Protecting the 'Sanctity' of Marriage

i wrote this letter to the editor to my school newspaper last spring...but i wanted to post it here too b/c bush pisses me off and so do the rest of his stupid religious right fanatics.
~~~~~~~~~

President George W. Bush is pushing for an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Much of the argument in favor of this amendment relates to the sanctity of marriage. What, then, does sanctity mean?According to the Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, it means “godliness” or “sacredness.” So, not only does this word have the capacity to hold a powerful recognition of a relationship, but it is followed by another word that adds a religious implication.

This piece of legislation that is trying to implement an amendment to the Constitution that will discriminate against one group of people solely because of sexuality … well, it is simply unconstitutional. The First Amendment specifically states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The groundwork of this country was for a secular nation that has a separation of church and state.There are millions of straight people getting married every day, and 50 percent of them getting divorced within one year. Can we honestly say there is such thing as “sanctity of marriage”? Why should straight people be the only ones to have their relationship legally, religiously and socially recognized as legitimate? The ban on gay marriage is wrapped up in the Christian religion.

In a “secular” nation, the right to marry should not be about religion. Even those who are married by a Justice of the Peace receive a marriage certificate, whether or not they want the religious term “marriage” involved in securing their legal rights, rights that gay couples are denied. For example, a gay person cannot see her/his sick partner in the hospital, adopt children, or in many cases, receive health benefits.Bush is hiding behind the word “sanctity.” Bush is trying to protect the institution of marriage as we know it, but what is he trying to protect it from? People who love each other and would simply like to have their relationship recognized the way that everyone else is able to?

Protecting the entitlement of legal rights that the institution of marriage grants, but only to straight people, is Bush’s real agenda. This is blatant discrimination. Amendments such as this do nothing to promote the “sanctity of marriage.” Rather, this amendment encourages religious hegemony, hatred, homophobia and discrimination, all of which are things that detract from the ideals our nation was built on.